Inside a hydrogen atom

A hydrogen atom consists of a proton with charge Q = + e Q = + e at the origin ( r = 0 ) (\vec r = 0) and an electron with charge Q = e Q = -e , which is characterized by a spherical charge density ρ e ( r ) = e π a 3 e 2 r a \rho_{e-}(r) = - \frac{e}{\pi a^3} e^{- \frac{2 r}{a}} with the Bohr radius a 0.05 nm a \approx 0.05 \, \text{nm} . The electron screens the charge of the proton to the outside so that atom is electrically neutral for large distances r a r \gg a and thus has no electric field.

But how large is the electric field inside the hydrogen atom at a radial distance of r = a ? r = a?

Give the result in units of E 0 E_0 with an accuracy of 3 decimal places, where E 0 = e 4 π ε 0 a 2 E_0 = \frac{e}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 a^2} describes the corresponding field of the naked proton.


The answer is 0.677.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Considering Gauss' law for a spherical charge distribution, it follows E d A = E ( r ) 4 π r 2 = Q r ε 0 \oint \vec E \cdot d\vec A = E(r) \cdot 4 \pi r^2 = \frac{Q_r}{\varepsilon_0} with the charge Q r Q_r , that is enclosed by a sphere with radius r r . This charge can be estimated by volume integration with the help of spherical coordinates Q r = e + ρ e ( r ) d V = e + 0 r 0 π 0 2 π ρ e ( r ) r 2 sin ϑ d φ d φ d r = e 4 π 0 r e π a 3 e 2 r a r 2 d r = e 4 e a 3 0 r [ 2 α 2 e α r ] α = 2 a d r = e 4 e a 3 [ 2 α 2 0 r e α r d r ] α = 2 a = e 4 e a 3 [ 2 α 2 1 α ( 1 e α r ) ] α = 2 a = e 4 e a 3 [ 2 α 3 ( 2 α 3 + 2 r α 2 + r 2 α ) e α r ] α = 2 a = e ( 1 + 2 r a + 2 r 2 a 2 ) e 2 r a \begin{aligned} Q_{r} &= e + \int \rho_{e-}(r') dV = e + \int_0^{r} \int_{0}^{\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} \rho_{e-}(r') r'^2 \sin \vartheta d\varphi d\varphi dr' \\ &= e - 4 \pi \int_0^{r} \frac{e}{\pi a^3} e^{-\frac{2 r'}{a}} r'^2 dr = e - \frac{4 e}{a^3} \int_0^{r} \left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2} e^{-\alpha r'} \right]_{\alpha = \frac{2}{a}} dr' \\ &= e - \frac{4 e}{a^3} \left[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2} \int_0^{r} e^{-\alpha r'} dr' \right]_{\alpha = \frac{2}{a}} = e - \frac{4 e}{a^3} \left[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2} \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(1 - e^{-\alpha r} \right) \right]_{\alpha = \frac{2}{a}} \\ &= e - \frac{4 e}{a^3} \left[ \frac{2}{\alpha^3} - \left(\frac{2}{\alpha^3} + \frac{2 r}{\alpha^2} + \frac{r^2}{\alpha} \right) e^{-\alpha r} \right]_{\alpha = \frac{2}{a}} \\ &= e \left(1 + \frac{2 r}{a} + \frac{2 r^2}{a^2} \right) e^{-\frac{2 r}{a}} \end{aligned} Therefore, the electrical field for r = a r = a results to E ( a ) = Q r 4 π ε 0 r 2 r = a = 5 e 2 E 0 0.677 E 0 E(a) = \left.\frac{Q_r}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 r^2}\right|_{r=a} = 5 e^{-2} E_0 \approx 0.677 \cdot E_0

Hello, Sir. I am trying to learn physics, and I have a question. If you decide you want to try to answer it, that'd be great! If not, that's fine, too. I don't understand why none of the charge on the outside of the sphere of radius a a is taken into account. Is there some missing link that I am not aware of? Otherwise, intuitively, it seems one could include a spherical shell (as part of the electron density function) with an inner radius larger than a a with the right thickness and charge density that could render the electric field zero on the sphere of radius a a .

James Wilson - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

The fact, that the charge in the outer shell (r > a) does not contribute to the electric field, can be justified by the Gauss's law. However, there are important intermediate steps that I have not really explained, so your confusion is understandable. In addition, it is a more complicated topic that is not taught at school, but comes up physics study at university in the second semester.

Why is the charge distribution outside the sphere r = a r = a completely unimportant? Well, that's because the electrical force produced by a point charge at a distance d d is inversely proportional to the square of the distance ( E 1 / d 2 E \propto 1/d^2 ). It's easier if we think of the charge distribution on a metal sphere instead of the hydrogen orbital. The charge on the metal sphere is homogeneously distributed over the entire surface at r = R r = R and the electric field inside the sphere is zero. I can not fully reproduce the proof here without a drawing. But for any point inside the sphere you can draw a narrow cone through this point, which pierces the sphere surfaces on two opposite sides. If we accept these conic sections as point charges, we can calculate their electric field and conclude that the electric field of the conic sections cancel each other out. Since, we can do that for all points and all directions of the cones, the electric field in the metal sphere must be zero. The same argumentation can be applied to the hydrogen orbital, if we think of the charge distribution as an onion with many shells. Each shell has no contribution to the field inside, so the entire charge distribution outside does not matter.

The important point is, that the charge distribution is spherically symmetric. If there are deviations from the spherical shape, this argument does not hold. Futhermore, the electric field must also obey this symmetry. The strength of the electric field depends only on the radial distance r and is the same for all points on the sphere around the origin (r = const). The direction vector of the electric also stands perpendicular to the sphere, so that E ( r ) = E ( r ) r r = E ( r ) e r \vec E(\vec r) = E(r) \frac{\vec r}{r} = E(r) \vec e_r The rest of the calculation requires some knowledge of vector analysis and one or the other trick in calculating integrals.

Markus Michelmann - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I highly appreciate your detailed response. Your explanation has surely been helpful to me. The next thing I will try to do is rigorously verify your arguments. Perhaps then I can be fully convinced. I am sure others will appreciate your elaboration on your solution as well. Thanks much.

James Wilson - 3 years, 4 months ago

Can you please change the notation of Euler's number ' e e ' to ' e \mathbb{e} ' for correcting unambiguity between Euler's number and electronic charge.

Tapas Mazumdar - 2 years, 8 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...